Libertarians Revel In Sweet, Sweet Subjugation

Following the release earlier this week of the Colorado Libertarian Party’s so-called “Candidate Pledge for Liberty,” a list of litmus-test issues being imposed with the full consent and cooperation of Colorado Republican Party chairman Dave “Let’s Go Brandon” Williams on Republican candidates lest they draw a spoiler, Libertarian Party chairperson Hannah Goodman dropped whatever poker face she had:

Of course, if you’re one of those 900,000 Colorado Republicans now under the thumb of the nation’s premiere political propellerhead mutual irrelevance society, you might not be so thrilled by the current state of affairs. In order to avoid a Libertarian challenger, Republicans are now required to pledge action on everything from “abolishing” the nation’s intelligence agencies to pardoning Julian Assange.

Libertarian CD-3 candidate Mark Elworth.

In fact, are there any Republican candidates out there who can pass the “Mises Caucus” Libertarian purity test? As 9NEWS reported Monday, not even Colorado’s foremost firebreathing far-right conservative Rep. Lauren Boebert is safe:

Goodman told 9NEWS that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert might not fit the qualifications.

“Is Lauren Boebert a strong liberty candidate? That is to be determined. I don’t necessarily think that Lauren Boebert… is a strong liberty candidate in my opinion,” she said. [Pols emphasis]

Boebert won by just 546 votes last year without a Libertarian in the race. Recently, a Libertarian registered to run against Boebert. He’s a perennial candidate and cannabis activist…

The takeaways are pretty simple: if Lauren Boebert isn’t a strong enough “liberty candidate” for the Libertarian Party, their standards are far too stringent to impose on the Republican Party if they have any desire to win a general election. Second, if the GOP/Libertarian grand alliance can’t stop a traveling stoner perennial candidate who showed up from Nebraska to siphon a few thousand votes from a vulnerable Republican who can’t afford to lose more than 546, it calls into question the strategic value of the entire partnership.

But for today, we just want to know if Dave Williams agrees with Goodman’s assessment of Boebert.

And if he’s willing to say it to Boebert’s face.

5 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

    How have the libertarians squared the circle when it comes to the issue of freedom and reproductive choice?

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Your issue is there, but the pathway to develop it is rather tenuous. 

      At the end of the State pledge is a notation to uphold the US and Colorado Constitutions.

      In the Colorado Constitution, Article II, Sections 3, 4, 7 would appear to address this issue, particularly Section 4 which goes into some detail regarding freedom of religion.

      As an aside, the ban-abortion bills that seem to appear in every session of the Legislature violate Article II, Section 4. I'd take it a step further to say that any legislator who votes for such a bill violates their oath of office to uphold the Colorado Constitution.

  2. Southwest Denver Dem says:

    LB, their platform is vague. The Libertarian party platform includes the following statement, under The Individual:

    Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. Individuals must be free to make choices for themselves and accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make, provided those choices do not violate the rights of others. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

    This is not clear on reproductive rights. I’d say they’re probably split on the issue of abortion. Some will fall on the side of bodily autonomy for the pregnant person while others will fall on the side of the fetus as a person. They probably don’t want to piss off either side and choose to be vague.

    Regardless, those on the side of repro rights shouldn’t trust their reproductive liberty to these boot strappers. Though I do think it’s funny how the L’s have the R’s by the short hairs and it remains to be seen if this will actually result in the election of any R’s in competitive districts. Much less in keeping any L spoilers out.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      One of those "sides" is much smaller. There have been four anti-abortion and/or personhood ballot initiatives in Colorado beginning in 2008.

      In those four, the "pro-life" position lost by an average of 67% against and 33% for. Those were not landslide losses. Those were brutal beatdowns put on the "pro-life" side by Colorado voters.

    • Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS says:

      It sounds like an ideological Rorschach test where it depicts whatever the viewer sees in it.

      For a political party that is critical of the milquetoast ambiguous positions taken by mainstream parties, they have some chutzpah. 

      IIRC, there was a time they were pro-choice. Period.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.